Jump to content

Talk:Xylococcus bicolor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Description photos

[edit]

Hi, A picture is worth a thousand words. I went to an effort to get some photos to accompany the plant description. I have a photo of the leaves and flowers, one of the general shape of the plant, and one of a sapling. I think it would make the most sense to keep them in the description section. When I go to lookup a plant it is usually to either learn what I am looking for or to confirm what I have seen. These photos are intended to be helpful in that regard.

The description does need more work to be more thorough. One reviewer has already suggested that I left out leaf size, for example. And some botanists might want to go into more detail on flower parts and such, though that information can be found in one of the Jepson references I gave. FatBear1 (talk) 19:22, January 13, 2009 (UTC)

More on photos

[edit]

Over the past year someone has added a lot of good information to the article. Thank you, it needed it. But someone also reduced the size of the photos, deleted two of them, and moved the gallery to the bottom of the page. Please don't do that again. I was careful to make some good photos to accompany the description and I put them in the description section of the article. If they are not adequate, drop me a message, tell me what could be improved and I will work to do so.

Just describing a plant is of limited value. An important aspect to any plant is how it fits into it's world - that's called ecology. I included some photos related to the ecology of X.bicolor. No, they aren't the best possible photos, but they were what I could get and will do the job until better ones appear. I put those in the ecology section. Please do not delete them again unless it is to replace them with better ones. And if you have better ones, then by all means, use them!

Photos are a very valuable tool in describing objects and organisms. The web is fast, servers are large, monitors are large, the population is aging and it is useful for photos in the article to be large enough to be visible. Yes, you can click a photo and see a larger version, but you have to be able to see enough to know if you want to click it. Please do not shrink these photos again. I don't know or care if Wikipedia has some bureaucratic rule for photo sizes. It's wrong and foolish if it requires smaller photos. The first and highest consideration should be whether the article is readable and informative, not whether it fits some arcane set of rules. FatBear1 (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 external links on Xylococcus bicolor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Xylococcus bicolor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xylococcus_bicolor&oldid=1206100353"